role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

July 16, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

BRITISH PENSIONS

Mr Mills moved resolution 16:

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This morning I am pleased to rise in my place to speak to my resolution, which addresses a matter of considerable concern to thousands of our senior citizens who have come to live in Ontario and other parts of Canada from the United Kingdom and who are deprived of their rightful, fully indexed pensions which they have earned in the United Kingdom.

Resident in the province of Ontario are about 60,000 men and women who have all been treated not only unfairly but, more to the point, unjustly by the government of the United Kingdom. All British old age pensioners living in Ontario are indeed saddened by the British government's complaint that it can't afford the large sum to update fully British pensions in Canada. The annual pension bill in Great Britain is about £28.5 billion. They say they have no money to pay the expatriates, yet in five minutes or so, they managed to drum up billions of pounds for the Gulf war in defence of principle, honour and justice.

The Monty Python Ministry of Nonsensical Notions, through the Bouncillor of the Exchequer, under the direction of the Wry Minister, has decreed that the well-known national interest, not necessarily the interest of its nationals, requires that there be haves and have-nots; the have-nots to be the 110,000-odd compatriots, no more and no less, who may have crewed the same tank, served on the same destroyer, served on the same anti-aircraft post, shovelled the same incendiary bombs off the same rooftops, tilled the same fields, worked on the same wartime factory assembly line and, perhaps above all, made the same contributions to the same pension fund, the same national insurance fund.

I want to turn for a few moments to speak to health care costs as they relate to British old age pensioners now living in Ontario and indeed throughout all of Canada. I think the comparison is an important point in this debate.

The United Kingdom government estimates that to fully index the pensions of the recipients living in Canada is about £100 million each year. Based on health care estimates, if all the British pensioners were to return to the United Kingdom next week, they would not only qualify immediately for fully indexed pensions but the estimate of their health care costs would be a staggering £900 million. These costs, together with the increased pensions, amount to a total of £1 billion. To claim that the £100 million to index pensions is unaffordable for the British government, given the facts, is nothing less than an affront to reason.

British pensioners from the United Kingdom now resident in one of the so-called favoured countries, for instance in the United States, Germany or Italy, continue to receive fully indexed pensions from Great Britain. This senseless discrimination has prevented many elderly British pensioners from joining their families and their loved ones in Canada because their pride will not allow them to become a burden to their family members, a burden that is bound to occur the longer they live past the very first year of their arrival here. Many more pensioners have died while waiting for the decision for a fair, universally indexed British pension, parted from their loved ones in their twilight years.

I'm going to make brief reference to a Mrs June Borsberry, living at this time in North Devon, England. This lady, in her twilight years of life, is waiting to come to Toronto to be with her son but is prevented from doing so for precisely the same reasons I have just made reference to. This situation is appalling and an example of what I shall term frozen justice.

Another example involves a woman who recently moved to the United States from Canada. This woman advised the pension office in London of her change and was advised by that same pension branch office in Newcastle that her pension would now be fully indexed as she had moved away -- believe this, Mr Speaker -- from the Commonwealth. We see everyday examples of a world gone crazy. I don't have to say any more about the incident I've just outlined to you.

Some time ago a prominent British politician wrote a letter to a British pensioner living in Canada. That letter was sent to a Mr Will Brown of Oakville. The writer said:

"I fully appreciate and sympathize with your sense of unfairness at the way in which British expatriate pensioners living in Canada are treated. I know of no reason in equity why those who have chosen to live in one of the dominions, many of whom have served their country in war, should be denied the uprating of their pensions, which they would have been entitled to if they remained in the United Kingdom."

The letter-writer goes on to say: "The truth is, you should get a bonus for relieving the British taxpayer of responsibility for your care and medical treatment in your old age." The writer of that letter was Winston S. Churchill.

Over the years, thousands of letters have been sent to British ministers of the crown and to MPs in the British House of Commons from British old age pensioners and their families. These letters haven't yet been able to create an irresistible impact. Not trying to overstate the matter, the British government, like most contemporary governments around the world, has allowed expediency to pre-empt principle.

It is vital that the present pressures on the British government be increased. The whole point of my referendum today is to increase that pressure to prevent them from riding out the mass storm of protest. The policy may be seen as an irrational policy approach, but the British government, once considered the doyen of rational and commonsense behaviour, seems to have deserted its tradition.

In conclusion, I am asking for the unanimous support of all members of all parties in this House to my resolution today. Personally I find the situation of British old age pensioners, both those living in Ontario and indeed throughout all of Canada and those waiting to come to spend their twilight years with their loved ones, linked with discrimination. It is a disgrace to the tradition which many of us have grown up with, and you too, Mr Speaker. I know your traditions; I know your heritage.

Many of us have grown up within a country which has always prided itself on common sense and embraced the practice of logical and rational behaviour. This is the crux of this resolution. I'm going to wait and listen intently to the remarks of my colleagues on the government side and in both opposition parties. I implore everybody in the House today and those who will come later on around 12 o'clock to vote on this motion to support this because we have to do something about this dreadful situation.

I had a letter that was placed on my desk this morning. I'll use up my last 54 seconds to summarize it. It's from the Salvation Army at Toronto Grace Hospital to the social benefits folks in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It says that a lady came over here on a visit and had a stroke. Her pension was not only frozen but her supplement was also taken away. While she was here and could not go back to the United Kingdom, this lady's family continued to pay $576 a month to uphold their mother in an institution, because the British government had deserted her and cut off all pensions and supplements.

I find that single injustice terribly discriminating and unacceptable to me and my colleagues here this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Durham East will have two minutes in summation at the termination of the debate.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): First of all, I want to say I am going to support this resolution.

[Interruption]

Mr Callahan: Don't clap too soon.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to advise our visitors that indeed they're most welcome, except that a demonstration such as applause is not tolerated. We would ask you to please refrain from applauding.

Mr Callahan: Can I have the clock rolled back, Mr Speaker? I lost time while that admonition was being given.

I applaud my colleague the member for Durham East for bringing this motion forward. It is certainly a most worthy one. I always have an open and advocating heart with reference to seniors, because these people have worked and put in the years that have created many of the things you and I are enjoying and our children will enjoy.

Having said that, I have to go first to the question of how the structure of this House works so these people do not think that if this receives the unanimous consent or support of the House today anything will happen. We all know the process in this House in private members' hour. It's almost to the point where you might abolish private members' hour, because it never gets anyplace.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Come on now, don't be so cynical.

Mr Callahan: It's not a question of being cynical at all.

My colleague the member for Carleton East introduced Bill 54, which received second reading in this House in December 1991. Mr Speaker, you will remember that bill because it was an admirable one. It's a bill that he now fights each day by a statement in the House to get the government House leader to call forward for third reading.

The bill basically says that cheque cashing operations, such as you see in Las Vegas, which are open 24 hours a day and are charging seniors as well as other people fees to cash their cheques, should be regulated and there should be certain cheques on which there should be no fees payable. That bill got second reading in this House, which is approval in principle, with the unanimous vote of this House. It has never been called for third reading by the government House leader of the New Democratic Party.

I want you people to understand that what happens here today -- and I applaud my colleague the member for Durham East for bringing it forward -- is really something that depends upon the whim of the government House leader. If he doesn't call it forward, nothing will happen.

I can tell you there's only one bill in this House that has ever been brought forward, and it was brought forward by a person who is now one of the spin doctors on the second floor, Mr McClellan. It was a bill to advance daylight saving time by one week. That's the only bill in private members' hour that has ever been taken through third reading and given royal assent.

I want you to understand that. I don't believe in fooling people. I believe people should understand what the rules are. As I said, I'm going to support it and I hope the government House leader does take that. It's a simple matter of petitioning the United Kingdom to give you people equity. But I'm telling you that this hour really could be abolished. When we were in government, private members' hour was a free vote. We were entitled to move anything. We never tried to whip the vote.

You watch over here. If there's something against the government policy, they will all vote as though they're joined at the hip.

Mr Hope: If he made sense we'd probably listen to him.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order. I would also like to advise the honourable member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Callahan: I'm getting back to the bill. I now want to go back to why I think it's so important -- not just because of the inequity that has been discussed by the member for Durham East, about the fact that these people worked for their pensions and that every other British dominion indexes the pensions and the effect it has on either their existence here or coming here to stay in this country -- because their lot becomes even more cruel by the things that are happening to seniors.

For instance, we haven't heard it yet, but I'm sure there will be a speculation tax brought out in the next budget which will tax the most significant asset that seniors have: their homes. If that happens then this asset that has accrued in value, which may be their only asset and may be the thing that's going to keep them in their golden years, will be taxed by the government.

The second thing is inheritance tax. I believe there is inheritance tax in existence in England. There was inheritance tax existing in Ontario and in Canada about 10 or 15 years ago. It was abolished because it was considered to be unfair, particularly to people who had amassed an estate and wished to have the opportunity to pass it on to their loved ones. I can tell you that you can look forward, unfortunately, to one of the budgets coming down from this government that will reinstitute inheritance tax and will institute speculation tax. That will impinge on the amount of money you have to survive on as well.

In addition to that, you look at the track record of this government in terms of what it has done for seniors. I know a lot of seniors and I'm getting pretty close to that myself, so I'm trying to pad my own existence. Seniors used to be able to go to provincial parks, I believe, for free. A lot of them like to travel in trailers and go to the parks. This government has increased the fees for those provincial parks for seniors. Seniors are now allowed to get in free into Ontario Place. The problem is, it costs you $9 to park. It used to be that seniors got in free at Ontario Place and there was no parking charge, or it certainly was a lot less than $9.

You look at the question of the federal government giving us all a break in terms of our taxes, and this government in its last budget took all of that money back by upping the Ontario portion of the provincial income tax. So in fact what happened was the federal government, and I don't speak for it, tried to give you a tax break. They picked it up. They picked up not just that but a bit more.

I look at the question of OHIP. Some of you people may travel outside of Ontario. We're trying to get the health care costs under control. That makes sense; I can support that. But hey make an announcement privately that if you stay out of the country the length of time you used to stay out suddenly your OHIP premiums disappear. They didn't bother to tell the seniors about that.

As I said to the Minister of Health in the House: "That is a devastating thing to do to seniors. What if they got ill down in Florida or someplace in the world and weren't aware that the time frame had been shortened? They would be left totally without health coverage." That certainly doesn't augur well in my mind in terms of what this government feels about seniors.

You look at the question of drug costs. You've now got a double-digit attack. You've got the federal government passing particular legislation and also a number of drugs that are available for use by seniors are being removed from the formulary. I've had letters in my office from people who are seniors and require a specific drug and it's been taken off the formulary. They can't get it. If they want it, they have to go out and pay the full cost or maybe buy a name brand, and it's even higher.

I suggest to you that there are a lot of things that really have not been done for the benefit of seniors. That's why I'm supporting this. I think you people deserve that extra pension. You're going to need it, because I'm suggesting to you that if the track record of this NDP government continues in its present vein it will be picking your pocket more and more. You're going to need all those extra dollars, so I'm strongly in support of that.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Give us a break, Bob.

Mr Callahan: The member says, "Give us a break." There's one thing in politics that I cannot be accused of by anybody in this House, and I challenge them to do it. It is that when I speak to people I don't try to play games with them or fool them. I tell them the full facts, and that's why I'm saying the things I am. It's not a question of trying to put down.

The member for Durham East is a fine gentleman. He has brought forward a motion that deserves the support of this House, as I've said right from the outset. But I think it's important that the seniors who are here and those who may be watching understand that the reason they need this extra money is because of the reasons I've given: that this government is picking away and taking away, bit by bit, the moneys that seniors have. Seniors are, in the main, on fixed incomes. Every time a government makes a decision that affects a senior citizen, it removes that safety measure that the seniors have.

That's totally unfair. So I believe in putting the matter in perspective and letting these people know exactly what may happen in terms of this motion.

I certainly hope the government House leader is listening -- he's not here, but I hope he's listening -- and that the Premier, who is not here, is listening. This motion doesn't require a great deal, Mr Premier. I'm speaking to you. You're not there, but I'm speaking to you.

The member for Durham East is simply asking on behalf of these very worthy people for a petition to be sent to Great Britain -- with the backing of the NDP government and the backing of the entire Legislature, because I think we'd all vote for it -- that these people should be entitled to have their pensions indexed. I think the arguments the member for Durham East makes are eminently sound and logical: the fact that if you sent these people back or they returned to England the cost would be greater than their staying here and having indexed pensions.

I think that's a marvellous argument and I wish you well, member, that you're able to persuade the people who have the levers of power to do that.

What may happen is the spin doctors in the back room may say: "That could be politically dangerous to do because we don't want to talk about indexed pensions. Even though all of us politicians get indexed pensions, we don't want to talk about that because it may mean that other people will want indexed pensions." So, "I'm sorry, Gord," he'll say to you. "We can't do anything with that motion. It was passed unanimously by the House, but it's not going anyplace."

One of my colleagues here in the House wishes to have two minutes of this, and I'm going to attempt to give it to him. I want to say this to the member for Durham East and to every member of this Legislature: If we are going to have meaningful representation by backbenchers who are not part of the power group in this place, if we're going to make Thursday morning important rather than wasting our time here, then we have to reform this Legislature to the point where if a bill gets second reading, as was the case with Bill 154 of my friend the member for Carleton East, that bill is brought forward and is passed and given royal assent.

Governments have got to stop this thinking: "That's a pretty popular bill. We don't want to give the opposition the benefit of having gotten that bill through the Legislature. We want to take the glory for ourselves." I'll tell you, we've got to get over that habit too. We're here to serve the people of this province. We're not here to serve ourselves or serve our own egos or try to get our picture in the paper or get on television. We're here to serve the people of Ontario. The sooner we realize that and the sooner we deal with the reform of this Legislature, empowering backbench MPPs to vote the way they wish rather than joined at the hip, the better off we'll be.

I've left you only a minute and 30 seconds, my colleague, but I'm happy to give it to you. I will be supporting this bill. I urge all other members to support it as well.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very happy to stand in this House this morning and support this resolution. I see this resolution as being a totally non-partisan matter. I'm sorry some of the comments have developed into that flavour. We have lots of times and opportunities in this House to be partisan. The good thing about private members' business on Thursday morning is the fact that for the most part most of the bills and resolutions are non-partisan.

It's particularly significant for me to have this opportunity to speak to the member's resolution because I grew up in England. My parents were British. Except for the fact that my father died three months before the end of the war in the Royal Navy, and that my mother died in 1976 over here, my parents too would be in the position that the pensioners are in on whose behalf we are speaking this morning.

I also have been fortunate in receiving a number of telephone calls from my own constituents in this matter. If there had been more lead time and the if member who's moving the resolution was able to have more time to deliver the message, we probably would be in a position where we could actually speak personally on behalf of very many more of our constituents. In my case, the people who have called me are people I know very well in the community. It's a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of these individuals because they have made a tremendous contribution to this country, where they have chosen to live to be with their families.

It would make sense for the government of Ontario to support this resolution and follow it through to its final destination. I would hope that since the mover is a member of the government caucus, there will not be any problem with the intent of this motion being carried out. If there is, I say to you, Mr Mills, perhaps we should all camp out in the Premier's office.

People have called me this week: Dorothy Jamieson, Florence Gundhill and Mr and Mrs Corpe. When I mention those individuals, I know they are only four people of thousands whom we all have an opportunity to support in this House this morning.

I would also like to say at the outset that I think we all owe a tremendous expression of gratitude and congratulations to Benson Zonena. I think that Benson, as president of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, has obviously been working very hard for a very long time on this issue. I've fortunately been furnished with a number of newspaper articles and publications from him, from my friend Mr Mills and also from another friend, although not a constituent, in Toronto, Mr Douglas T. Ross.

This

article in the Weekly Telegraph is only one of many. I suggest to anyone who is not familiar with this issue that if he would like to contact my office, I would be more than happy to give him a copy of this

article so he knows the importance of the debate we are taking

part in this morning.

I would also encourage any of our British pensioners who live in Ontario today who wish to know more about this cause, and are wondering how they can be part of the thrust Mr Benson Zonena has started, to call my office and I would be happy to give them the telephone number. In fact I'll do it now. I'm not quite as old as Mr Mills, but I do need my glasses. The number is 253-6402. That's in area code 416. That's the number for the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners. This is one of their newsletters, and I would be happy to forward that information to anyone who wants to be part of this very important campaign.

I wonder who would have thought that in July 1992 we would have to stand in this House this morning on behalf of these pensioners. Who would ever have thought that of any government in the world, our British government would have chosen to copout totally in its responsibility to some of its pensioners. I could perhaps see it with a country with less history and less prestige, maybe even some other Commonwealth countries if we want to stay with the Commonwealth, but there are many countries in the world which would not have that system of honour that Great Britain has had throughout its history.

That's why I think it's very hard for us to understand that of all countries, we are now pleading with the British government to rectify what is absolutely an injustice.

I do not see this issue as a question of choice for the British government; it is purely a question of obligation. When these people contributed to their national insurance fund when they lived in Great Britain, they were doing the same thing we do in Canada when we contribute to our Canada pension plan. We all do that in good faith, anticipating that at the very least we would all be treated equally in the end.

What we have in this situation is favoured countries on the one hand, and countries that are not in favour on the other hand, depending on where you live. What an irony that as we stand here in this House today, perhaps a mere 30 miles from the United States, we can talk about the fact that the people in Ontario are not entitled to indexed British pensions, but if they had chosen to live 30 miles from here, in the United States, they would have that advantage and access to indexed pensions.

It is cruel that we have 42% of the people who were in Britain making their contributions to their national insurance fund, in good faith, receiving their indexed pensions, and yet we have 58% who do not have that right. In fact, and I say this to the member who moved this motion this morning, in my opinion, all these pensioners are not only entitled to be treated equally, but those pensioners whose pensions have been frozen these last number of years are entitled to a retroactive payment to be equal with those people who have been receiving it.

There is a tremendous irony because I haven't seen anywhere in this literature where in fact British pensioners living in our province are asking for that. They are not asking for retroactive payments, which I have said I think they're entitled to. They're simply saying: "Let us now be treated equally. Let it now be a fair system."

Frankly, I think the British government -- and it's gone on long enough, of course, that we can say it's gone through more than one political party -- is treating our expatriate pensioners as though they've already died. The sad thing, of course, is that in far too many cases, that is what has happened. People have died without the same privileges as other people receiving the same pension in other countries.

When people choose to retire abroad -- I notice in a number of these newspaper clippings that the term "retire abroad" is used quite frequently -- it's not usually for any other reason than that they want to be with their family members. A lot of older people do not wish to leave Britain because that's where they have their friends, their business associates and their community contacts through their churches and other organizations. When they make that choice to retire abroad, in 99% of the cases, it's a matter of a family tie.

I think it is totally obscene that any government would discriminate against a family that chose to retire abroad, in the colloquial sense, to be close to its family and grandchildren, with the irony, perhaps even more so, that they need additional support financially. The pension itself isn't any great gold mine even at its indexed rate in Britain. When you come to other countries that are excluded and without the indexed rate, it certainly becomes a pittance with today's standard of living.

I want to read one thing very quickly. This was what really bothered me. By the way, I should mention that in Mr Ross's letter to the editor of the Weekly Telegraph, he said something I thought was very significant, "One is led to assume that the greater the procrastination on this issue the lower will be the financial liability as the numbers diminish." Isn't that sickening? Unfortunately, it's factual.

A quote in the Daily Telegraph of Monday, June 1, says:

"A spokesman" -- of course it would be a spokesman -- "for the Department of Social Security said that cost was a major deterrent to such a change, however desirable the object might be.

"'The main purpose of the annual uprating of pensions and benefits is to protect the living standards of people in this country,' he added.

"'The cost of uprating pensions for all people living abroad would amount to _275 million a year and has to be considered in the light of other competing demands on the social security budget.'"

I would love to know who this spokesperson is in Britain who has the gall to say that the main purpose of upgrading the "pensions and benefits is to protect the living standards of people living in this country," meaning Britain. Who are they to decide the living standards should be any different wherever those entitled pensioners live? It is outrageous that the British government has for so many years felt it could remove itself from this responsibility. It is a moral responsibility they have, and for the Britain I grew up in I am ashamed that we are here debating this resolution. I hope it will have some impact on the British government ultimately.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise to support my colleague's resolution with a great deal of pleasure and concern, pleasure that I can support my friend and concern for the plight of fellow Canadians. These British pensioners are Ontarians who have come to us, as has my friend, from the United Kingdom. These are people who have become an integral part of our community. They deserve respect and consideration, not only as neighbours and newcomers to our cities and towns, but also as a part of the continuing heritage we share with them as a part of the British Commonwealth of nations. They offer us a direct connection with our many ancestors of British origin.

Since the 1970s, representatives of the more than 100,000 British pensioners in Canada have lobbied the British government. Most of those pensioners live here in southern Ontario. British pensioners from all over Ontario have been calling their local members of provincial Parliament to make them aware of this debate.

I hoped that we would have more representation and forthright support. Today, Joyce Read from my riding of Durham Centre is here. My friend Tom Edwards, the mayor of Whitby, has told me the plight his family members have suffered because of the basic unfairness of the British pension system.

Indexation is essential to fair pensions. After a lifetime of hard work and contributions, seniors deserve to have the security that they will be able to live with peace of mind, free from worries about their next meal. Not only have they earned this security, this peace of mind, but we as a community owe it to them. As a government, we are committed to basic social equity and fairness. Indexation of pensions is an index, a measure of that fairness.

I have heard of few more dramatic examples of the need for indexation of pensions than here with British pensioners. I've met numerous seniors, some frail and impoverished, who are recipients of an insulting crust of bread in the form of their pensions. These women and men are loyal subjects of Her Majesty. Their pittance is a shameful return, a shameful response to their earnest loyalty. Their loyalty is steadfast and constant in value, while their pensions have declined to become an insult to that loyalty.

Elderly British pensioners like Tom Calder of Oshawa may receive only $3.80, or _2, while if they were living in the United States or the United Kingdom their pensions would be indexed to $100 a week, 26 times the amount that Commonwealth residents receive, a 2,600% increase due to indexation, indexation that's automatic in the United States. Surely the loyalty and needs of British residents here in Canada are no less than of those residents in the United States.

Seven years ago our federal government deindexed family allowances and attempted to do the same thing with old age security. Seniors from all over Canada rose in indignation and the federal Conservatives reversed their stance. British pensioners do not directly have the power of the vote in the UK, wherein lies the mother of our parliamentary system. We in Ontario know what it is like to deal with an insensitive government. We have the prospect of a change in that government. British pensioners in Ontario must depend upon our entreaties on their behalf and upon their own lobbying efforts.

British pensioners in Canada have petitioned the British government year after year, and to no avail. Our government has attempted to secure bilateral agreement on social security and made some progress. We have such arrangements with 23 other countries.

What other country do we have closer ties with? Look at the flag of our province. It boasts and boosts the Union Jack. It's prominent in the left corner. And above us here we have the Union Jack itself. Our banner announces, "Ut incepit fidelis sic permanet." United Empire Loyalists we started, and loyal we remain.

My ancestors and those of most of us here came to Upper Canada from Scotland, from Wales, from Ireland, from England. We are Ontarians, we're Canadians, but even in our present rich nation, which is multicultural and includes people from all lands and races, much of what we are has been shaped by our heritage as British Canadians. Our very form of government, this assembly, is a growing part of British parliamentary tradition.

It seems ironic that the British government fails to recognize and respect its traditional fealties, the loyalties and traditions of Canada and other Commonwealth nations. The UK has a reciprocal treaty with 30 countries, but not with those that have a fealty to the British crown.

I urge my colleagues of all political persuasions to unite in support of their constituents who came to us from the United Kingdom. Join my colleague the member for Durham East in passing this resolution to petition the government of the UK and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as her subjects in Ontario, this most loyal of provinces.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too arise, in my one minute and 30 seconds, to support this resolution which is brought forward by my esteemed colleague on the government side, the member for Durham East.

It's a very important motion, and I too would like to emphasize what my colleague the member for Brampton South has said, because not only do we know, very much so, of the contribution of these people to this wonderful country and to their country of birth in Britain, it is living evidence that their contribution we enjoy today and we build upon.

But I must again emphasize the point made by my colleague from Brampton, that not only will he and my colleagues here support it on the first motion but look with great anticipation to support it on second reading and third reading, like many of the private members' bills here. It is very important that he has brought to the attention of all who are here listening, who are in the gallery, that saying it on first reading does not make it law. We hope the government and all of us here will see this through all the readings.

I want to commend him very much, because we know how passionately he feels about these people who have contributed so well. I know I can't talk about ancestry, but I talk about fairness and human rights, and that's why we should support this.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I haven't got a whole lot of time to talk about this. I wish I had more, and I'm counting on the people around me to slow me down when I get to the end of the time allotted to me.

The folks watching this can't see the galleries, but I want the thousands of people in Ontario watching this on their television sets this morning to know that there has never been so complete and thorough an attendance by members of the public in the public galleries during private members' resolutions.

You know, it makes me feel good. I can't tell you how good it makes me feel when I see the public coming down here. This is your building. It is; it's your building, and you have a right to observe, to monitor and to criticize -- I enjoy the right to criticize on occasion myself -- but to watch what happens here in this your building, your Legislature.

Yes, I support this resolution, and I'm really counting on there being unanimous support for this resolution so that the message from this Legislature is a message about justice, it's a message about fairness. It's a message about equity, isn't it? It's about simple equity; it's about getting what's rightfully yours.

The folks who are here and the folks who are listening are like so many people of their generation. I don't demean anything anybody's done, but they live with the most modest they have, with the most modest of goals. That was to make life a little bit better for their children than it was for them. To do that these people made sacrifices, they made commitments, they lived by their convictions; they adopted principles and they stuck by them.

They made sacrifices and they served: They served their community, they served their country, they served their workplace, they served their neighbours, they served their churches. Many of them served in some of the most difficult of times and many of them have but memories of spouses or parents or siblings who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I'm so proud to be able to speak to this, this being an issue of justice and fairness and, yes, equity. I don't know if the folks know this or not: We're not supposed to refer to members by name. Oftentimes members are referred to by many other things besides their names, but the member for Durham East -- I take it upon myself, and please, Speaker, don't jump to your feet and condemn me for referring to Gord Mills by his name because I happen to know him and his wife, and I know his wife calls him that; not the member for Durham East but Gordon Mills.

Seniors have a great number of advocates here in this Legislature -- yes, in all three parties; there's no exclusivity on the part of New Democrats -- but no advocate for the rights and interests of seniors has been more vocal, more articulate, more adamant than Gord Mills from Durham East. That riding has a tradition of very outspoken and enthusiastic representation here in the Legislature. I know that, because I was here before 1990 and I tell you, Gord Mills carries on that tradition of outspoken, strong, forceful, articulate, spirited and principled spokesmanship and representation of the people in his riding.

I want the people who are here to know there's a minister responsible for seniors' issues, and that's Elaine Ziemba, Minister of Citizenship. People who've got pens and paper with them should take down the minister's phone number. You can call Elaine Ziemba at 325-6170. Call her after this resolution is passed to let her know that you want her to join Gord Mills and this Legislature in calling upon the British government to create the fairness that this resolution calls for.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise and vigorously support the resolution presented by the member for Durham East. As the member for Welland-Thorold said, while it may be not appropriate to use the name of Gord Mills in this House, I certainly want to tell the people of his riding and the many visitors we have today that Mr Mills has in fact defended the rights of seniors and forwarded the rights of seniors since his arrival in this place.

I support this resolution for many other reasons. Mr Mills mentioned in his remarks that we have 60,000 expatriate Brits living in Ontario. Many of these people live in my constituency. Maybe some of the folks who are sitting here today are resident in the riding of Scarborough Centre. I do this for you, and I do this also for my Uncle Tommy. It's too late for his wife, my Aunt Mary, as she's deceased, but it's not too late for his daughter, Julia.

If they decided to emigrate to this fine country, they would be disadvantaged by a policy that has taken a snapshot of people 13 years ago and has frozen them in reality. Things have changed in the many years, the different times that have transpired since this snapshot was taken.

I want to urge the Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba -- and for those who missed the opportunity during the remarks of the member for Welland-Thorold, that number is 325-6170. Write to Ms Ziemba, call Ms Ziemba and urge her to write the Prime Minister, John Major, to write Her Majesty the Queen to implore that this policy be changed to ensure equity for British pensioners in this country.

As the member for Mississauga South said, it's a disgrace that we have people who have worked, have fought side by side with my father during the Second World War, and they've come to this country, they've built this country, they've worked hard, they've built businesses, they've raised families, and now, at a time when life is supposed to be made easier, it is in fact more difficult.

The people of the British Isles have endured many hardships during the history of time. It is now time for this country to urge the country of Great Britain to reduce and eliminate the inequity with respect to pensions. Again I urge all members in the gallery, all people who are having the opportunity this morning to watch the parliamentary channel -- and perhaps it's a good thing we are sitting later on into the summer, so that there is an opportunity for more people to observe what goes on in this Legislature, to have an opportunity for members of the public to come in. As the member for Welland-Thorold has indicated, never ever have the galleries been so full.

In conclusion, again on behalf of the 60,000 expatriate British subjects in this country, on behalf of my Uncle Tommy, on behalf of my Aunt Mary, on behalf of his daughter, Julia, on behalf of the constituents who live in the riding of Scarborough Centre, I want to urge this government to contact the British government to eliminate this inequity.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham East has two minutes in summation.

Mr Mills: I've found this one of the most encouraging resolutions or bills I've ever had the privilege of introducing into this Legislature. I'd like to thank the members who have participated in this debate and I'd also particularly like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Mississauga South, Margaret Marland, who too had a father who is deceased but who fought in the war and would undoubtedly be very pleased today to be spoken of in the context of my resolution.

I'd like to thank the president of the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners, Mr Benson Zonena, who's in the gallery. Believe it or not, Ben feels so strongly about this that only on Monday last he was having heart surgery and he's here today. I'd also like to recognize the vice-president of the alliance, Mr Bob McMullen, who's in the members' gallery. I'd also like to mention the treasurer of the alliance, Barbara Curly, who's also here. I'm very remiss. My own sister, Phyllis Grace, and her husband, Keith, are here from England, from Peterborough. To all you wonderful people, thank you.

[Interruption]

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I again want to remind everyone that you're most welcome, but demonstrations, such as applause, in the galleries cannot be tolerated. Thank you very much.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm just wondering if, with agreement from all sides of the House, it would be possible to have the vote at this time rather than at 12 o'clock because most of our guests are elderly. I'm wondering whether, to accommodate them, we could have an agreement to have the vote now.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed. We will therefore proceed to a vote on Mr Mills's resolution 16. Are any members opposed to a vote on this resolution?

Motion agreed to.

Mr Mills: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I know that in Hansard it will record just that the motion was passed. I'd like to go on the record to indicate in Hansard that it was unanimous with everybody present in this House today.

LANDFILL

Mr Beer moved resolution 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 5(3), and the government has promised each person in Ontario the right to a full environmental assessment, including the right to a review of all options as it pertains to waste disposal in Ontario, and the impact of a landfill site in the greater Toronto area has not been fully examined in terms of the effect on communities, the environment, agriculture, municipalities, businesses and individuals, the Minister of the Environment should amend Bill 143 to allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, and consideration of disposal sites outside the GTA where a "willing host" community exists.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to first of all thank my colleague the member for Quinte, who allowed us to make use of his private member's time today, my colleague the member for Markham, who has this motion in fact on the order paper, and my colleague the member for York Centre. All three of us, the member for Markham, the member for York Centre and myself, believe this is a most critical matter of urgent public importance and we wanted to ensure that this summer we were able to debate this topic and try to convince the members opposite that Bill 143 should be changed. In my opening remarks I want to focus on two main elements.

Bill 143, just to remind people, is

An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act. It is my contention and our view that this is bad legislation which enshrines within it autocratic decisions by the minister that simply should not be tolerated in a democratic society.

It is ironic in a sense that we have just unanimously supported a motion which deals with persons who come from Great Britain, where in fact the democratic traditions and customs that we practise here originally began and were nurtured. I think one of the focuses we have to have when we look at legislation is to ensure that it is fair, that it is equitable and that it speaks to those democratic traditions and customs we have had. In this case, this bill does not.

We're going to hear a great deal today about process and about how this elaborate process that has been developed under Bill 143 is going to lead to a fair and just decision. It is our view that this is utter nonsense, that in fact this bill does just the opposite. Let's remember the impact of this bill. In real terms, this is a bill to decide where to put Metro Toronto's garbage. The decision taken by the minister and enshrined in this bill is that this garbage should go to the region of York. No discussion, no debate; that's where it's going.

What is it that is going into the region of York? Here is perhaps the most fundamental problem with this bill. From a government which has said in the past in opposition and which has proclaimed itself as recently as this month as the great defender of the environment, as the great party that speaks for the environment, what has it done here? It has said that in the region of York there shall be not just a dump; there shall be the largest dump in North America, larger even than the dump at Keele Valley. In trying to give people some sense of the scope of this dump, I think the best description is to note that it is the equivalent of 80 SkyDomes.

For a government that sees itself as being on the cutting edge of environmental progress and environmental reform, I think everybody has to ask himself the question, does it make sense then to proclaim that the most significant step we can take is to use what my friend and colleague the member for York Centre has termed "outhouse technology," a dump that will go down into the ground, but at the end of its time will be some 130 feet into the air?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Thirteen storeys high.

Mr Beer: Thirteen storeys high, which is perhaps a better way to envision it and which will be the equivalent of 80 SkyDomes. That's what this is all about. That's what this is leading us to. It's the creation of that kind of dump.

Within the act the minister says: "Other options cannot be considered. I will not tolerate that other actions, other options will be considered." No one is standing on this side of the House and saying, "There is but one option available to any government in terms of dealing with waste." We all recognize we have a problem. But to state in this bill, in the act that was passed by this Legislature because of the members opposite, there is but one way to go and that is to force a dump of that magnitude on the region of York, surely, I say to those members, runs counter to every environmental principle that exists.

Put it in the context, as I did in my question to the minister earlier this week, of the environmental bill of rights that has been brought forward by this government. Where are the rights of those persons living in the regions of Peel, York and Durham when it comes to dealing with what they are going to be forced to accept through this bill?

In my motion today, the motion I'm sharing with the member for Markham and the member for York Centre, we are simply saying that other options and alternatives should and must be considered. It is only right and it is only fair. This Bill 143 needs to be changed to make sure that in fact that can happen, because what we're saying is that as we go about trying to find solutions for our waste problems, we must not confine ourselves through ideology.

We've got to look at all of the new technologies that exist out there. What we have said is that they should go through the environmental assessment process. This act will not allow that. This act in effect speaks against using the environmental assessment process, which again the government has said for so long must be used in all matters of this kind. Well, if that is so, then let's make sure that is done here.

The second point I want to make in my opening remarks is the question around why the region of York has been fingered to take the waste from Metropolitan Toronto. Let's get one thing very clear at the outset: The region of York, where the Keele Valley landfill site exists, has been taking other people's waste for a long time. This is not a NIMBY issue here. We have been doing our part.

The region of York has said all along that it will deal with its own waste. That is not the issue. The issue is, why has this minister arbitrarily, unilaterally said in the bill that in addition to looking after the region's own waste, the region will also look after all of the waste of Metropolitan Toronto?

The minister received a letter dated July 8 from Eldred King, who is the chairman of York region, and I want to read this into the record because it is an important letter.

"Dear Madam Minister, I was most discouraged that you were not present at the rally on the steps of the provincial Legislative Building yesterday. I believe I had a very important message to share with you." He goes to attach a copy of that message.

"Also of great concern to me and York region council is a printed message from a communication published by your ministry...which is absolutely and blatantly inaccurate. Metro Toronto and York region have an agreement related to Keele Valley landfill site only. The agreement states, 'Metro will accept York waste up to the parameters as set out in the certificate of approval or to the year 2003.' If the site is filled prior to 2003, Metro must accommodate York's disposable waste in any other Metro facility. York region may also, before 2003, handle our waste in a manner so determined by regional council.

"There is absolutely no" -- and I repeat -- "there is absolutely no other agreement between Metro Toronto and York region, beyond the completion of the Keele Valley site."

It is for that reason that the region of York has gone to court and, under the charter, laid out a case which states very clearly that the rights of the individuals in the region of York have, through Bill 143, been denied. We believe that is a most serious charge and a most serious case.

It's for those two reasons in particular that I rise and speak against Bill 143 and for the changes proposed in this motion: First, it is simply bad public policy and bad environmental policy and I don't believe there can be any question to the contrary; second, it unilaterally and arbitrarily forces upon the region of York, with no discussion, the waste from Metropolitan Toronto.

This bill must be changed. Other options and other alternatives must be found. I encourage the members opposite as well as all of those on this side of the House to support this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for York North will have two minutes in summation later.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The fact is that when Europe was under attack, the Allies formed a pact on which they worked together, and certainly the kind of relationship I've had with the members for York North and York Centre is that when we have had to put something first, it is our local communities and the people of York region ahead of partisan politics. So I compliment the member for York North in presenting this resolution and I support strongly the things Mr Beer is saying and certainly what Mr Sorbara is doing as well.

If everyone could work together on things like this, our society would be stronger and better for it, instead of allowing it to become something where the politics become far bigger than the needs of the people in the community. So I'm complimented that Mr Beer is using a resolution that I tabled earlier. It shows that we can work together and we will work together. I commit myself to continue to do everything possible to fight for the people of York, Durham and Peel to prevent the kind of terrible travesty to the environment that is being brought forward by this government.

The resolution is broken into four parts, and what we are really talking about is the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites that go beyond their boundaries under the Environmental Assessment Act. I have to say that the Environmental Assessment Act, which has long standing in the history of Ontario, goes a long way to describing how a government can deal with it.

The other evening, I made a presentation to the Interim Waste Authority in its Stouffville office on behalf of the Conservative caucus. I would like to read into the record one of the paragraphs I presented at that time:

"To put it bluntly, the perceived override by Bill 143 of the Environmental Assessment Act's requirement, as stated in subsection 5(3) of that act, that an assessment include 'a description of and a statement of the rationale for the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking' truncates the process in a manner which not only precludes the assessment of alternatives to landfill in the GTA, but has also, for that very reason, fuelled public opposition to and scepticism about the process itself."

There isn't any doubt that when the government passed Bill 143 it removed the rights of people. That simple reason accounts for why York region is funding the court case of Mr Robert Johnston, mayor of Georgina, to fight for those rights in the courts. How terrible it is that people in a region have to use legal costs and court costs to fight the province here at Queen's Park. It's just a wrong use of money.

Notwithstanding that, the government is putting more than $19 million into the funding of the Interim Waste Authority's activities, and there is no intervenor funding for people who want to fight it. That is not forthcoming. It should be forthcoming. What we're doing is fighting each other. That's not the way to build a strong, healthy environment. That's really what has been fomented by this government in the way it's causing groups to fight each other rather than fight together for a common cause.

The third point of this resolution -- 1 and 2 go closely together -- is that the impact of landfill sites in the greater Toronto area has not been fully examined. I don't think there's any doubt that there's been a massive failure by this government to examine these sites. I have to feel that if they're dumb enough to put those 57 sites together, they might be dumb enough to put a landfill site in any one of them. If this government's dumb enough to choose them in the first place and put them on the list, then who knows what it's going to cause to happen? That is why people are wrecking their summers, fighting to have some understanding of justice.

In the Interim Waste Authority office in Stouffville, its topographical map showing the M3 site is so outdated it doesn't even show the large subdivisions south of 16th Avenue. That causes people to wonder whether they've taken into account all the people and population and social impacts that are part of it.

You say, "Come, people; express your views about these sites." When people went there the other night, there weren't even enough forms for them to sign to indicate their reasons for being concerned. Notwithstanding that, a couple of days ago the mayor's task force for Markham made a presentation. Indeed, task forces from all across the regions of York, Durham and Peel will be making their presentations. It's demonstrating the failure of the Interim Waste Authority to, in the first place, qualify the sites it has selected for any consideration at all.

The presentation given by the mayor's task force brought up the extremely hazardous use of land for a landfill site when it's close to airports. That alone should have precluded consideration of at least three sites. With a landfill, you end up having birds and different kinds of traffic coming into it that are dangerous near airports. Provision must be made to prohibit landfills within an eight-kilometre zone. The federal Ministry of Transport will be talking about the effect this has on the three sites: M3, M6 and one in Stouffville on Spring Lakes golf course.

Look at the data they had before they selected these sites. One site has a large, 25-hectare strawberry field on it. One site is so close to a blue heronry; it's 900 metres from the M6 site. You're talking about flood plains that have never really been understood and are not part of the IWA process. You've got creeks that are missing: certainly the Burndennett Creek was missed in the M3 review.

We're talking about an analysis that is extremely incomplete. We're talking about the impact these sites can have on the large socio and geographic areas they are close to. What they've done is laid down a number of sites without any understanding, it seems, of the relationship it's going to have on the people and on the communities.

We concern ourselves with how this government has selected its criteria in choosing these sites. It confuses the importance of one site over another. They contradict themselves by virtue of their own policies and how they have it going. I have an example. My friend the member for Dufferin-Peel, who very much wanted to be here this morning but cannot, asked if I would comment briefly on some of the considerations of the 15 sites that are selected in Caledon and in Peel.

One site is owned by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. One borders on the Oak Ridges moraine and the Humber River tributary. One also includes a farmers' burial ground that was established in the 1800s, not registered but there are definitely bodies there. All sites in Peel are on agricultural land and on excellent farms.

We're talking about sites right across the whole of York, Durham and Peel that cut into the Oak Ridges moraine, the tributaries of the Rouge Valley and the Don River. You're talking about sites that are on the Ganaraska, sites that are in close proximity to Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario. What a fool this government has proven itself to be in selecting such sites to eliminate Metro Toronto's garbage. The logic they use is totally inadequate, that they believe people have to see their garbage. Maybe they should provide bus tours so the people in Toronto can come and see where their garbage is going.

Most people don't even know where Keele Valley is; they probably think it's out in Manitoba. Once it leaves their doorsteps, once it leaves their streets, they think it's gone. It is gone, but it's very close to them.

The people in Metro as well as the regions surrounding Metro have a genuine reason to be concerned that this government has said, "It's just going to have to be this way." The government has closed its mind to the options that are available. That is the third and final point I wanted to stress in my presentation this morning, and that is part of the presentation I made to the Interim Waste Authority earlier this week.

On behalf of our caucus, we wanted to make it very clear that the authority review the legislation which gives the authority power to consider options other than just looking at the most valuable space in Canada that surrounds the greater Toronto area; in other words, look at the rail-haul option. Our caucus had two resolutions we presented to Mr McIntyre and the IWA: that the IWA commission or conduct a complete environmental assessment of the Kirkland Lake rail-haul proposal, and that the IWA assess the proposal by applying the same eight criteria it will employ in a comparative evaluation of the GTA candidate sites.

I'm not saying that Kirkland Lake, Adams mine, is the site; I don't know. But I do ask that there be a thorough environmental assessment of that site. It's a willing host site. When you hear the kind of remark made by the New Democrats, "That means you have to look at all other sites," that is a lie. When there are people who are a willing host site and are prepared to accept it, that is the kind of opportunity we should look at here within the greater Toronto area. It's happened in Oregon. It's happened in many parts of the United States where you have a rail-haul option, and it's working.

The other recommendation we made on this very important point is that the IWA reduce uncertainty and strengthen the credibility of the site selection process by immediately delisting candidate sites located in, on or near environment biospheres. When you realize the effect these landfill sites will have on such a large area, you have to understand that there are other considerations beyond just the people.

Part of the presentation that was made earlier this week by Gartner Lee in the mayor's task force touched on environmental considerations: the gases, the leachate, the traffic, the vectors, the odour, the visual impact. When you think that these sites we're talking about will be 11 storeys tall, it has a huge impact on these communities. The litter, the dust, the noise: How many people want to have 500 trucks passing their homes and their streets and going through their communities every day? The air emissions, the effect on settlement, the effect on heritage: All these are considerations that have to be brought to mind.

As we speak in favour of this motion, we're asking only for common sense. We're asking for some sanity, for some chance for this government to reopen its consideration of other options, other than delimiting and controlling the search process to the 57 sites that have been proposed. If this were done, we would be in a position in this province to take it a step further and open up for technology and open up for other ways of handling our garbage.

I compliment the member for York North. I sincerely hope this will be a day we will see a change of heart by the member for Durham-York, who certainly is part of the York community, a person who has sensibility. I hope that at this point in time, he'll have an opportunity to come on side for the people of York rather than take the partisan political role he has taken up until now. I don't know what the member for Durham West will do. We all know he has talked on both sides of this issue. Therefore, as we hear him talk in the House and in committee, we know there are different ways in which he handles the issue. The public will deal with him appropriately when the time comes.

I'm going to leave a few moments for my member who's critic for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'd like to address those last comments first. My stand on the issue of waste management has been consistent since 1987, when Metropolitan Toronto first made its incursions into Ajax at the Brock South site. It remains consistent, and that is that there should be no landfill sites anywhere in Durham that do not undergo a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing. I agree that Bill 143 fulfils those requirements. I have not said anything different and I will continue to --

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: Also, I would like to point out that during the debate by the member for York North and the member for Markham, I sat here and did not heckle. I would think the return courtesy would be useful.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): But you've got to tell the truth in this House, Jim, and you know 143 is not a full environmental assessment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr Wiseman: I would tell the member for Oriole that I have done nothing but tell the truth in this House and that if her party were consistent with what it has done in the past -- it's rather interesting that it is lately coming to this position of full environmental assessment.

But I'd like to read my prepared remarks. I rise once again in this House to debate the issue of waste disposal. I welcome the opportunity to revisit the issue we debated endlessly over the past winter when we discussed Bill 143, the Waste Management Act. I have to admit I understand the member's anxiousness to debate this issue once again. It may well be that some of the members of the opposition did not pay very close attention when this bill was brought through the House, as they did not realize that this bill was going to be a catalyst by which potential landfill sites could end up in their backyards or their ridings.

I understand that not all members of this Legislature have had the opportunity to understand the garbage issue the way I do, and I think they're lucky they don't. It is an issue I cut my political teeth on. It is an issue that is very near, but I can tell you, not so dear, to my constituents.

The member wants to "amend Bill 143 to allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of...waste" in the greater Toronto area.

I know what he's talking about. He's talking about incineration. We live in a parliamentary democracy. The bill prohibiting incineration as an option for the GTA's waste disposal was debated in this House. It was referred to the standing committee on social development and we had five weeks of hearings. We returned the report of the committee to the Legislature, debated it a third time, and as happens in parliamentary democracy, the bill was passed and it became law.

Am I missing something here? Has there been some change to the definition of "democratic process"? I'm sure the members opposite would like to believe a democratic process is one that favours the whining of opposition members. I'm afraid that just isn't the case. We had the hearings and we listened to all sides of the argument. Yes, I said all sides. Issues have more than one side. That is what --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You'll have your time to reply.

Mr Wiseman: During these hearings we had agreement from the member for Mississauga South, who shares this government's view on incineration. As a matter of fact, she spoke more eloquently on the subject than anyone else did during the hearings.

I am proud to say this government is considering future options for the disposal of GTA waste. There is nothing in Bill 143 that prevents this from happening. Evaluation of these options is happening as we debate this very issue in the House today. No, only incineration was ruled out. It is clearly not an environmental answer. All it will do is swallow up the precious and few natural resources this world has left to offer, further pollute the air we breathe and leave a toxic waste at the end of the process even more difficult to dispose of than normal waste if it can only be disposed of in a hazardous waste site. It does nothing to close the environmental loop.

The second part of the resolution deals with the consideration of disposal sites outside the GTA where a willing host community exists. I am sorry, but I have to laugh when I see the phrase "willing host." My constituents in Pickering know all about "willing host." They are the most unwilling of willing hosts there are. The Brock West landfill site currently in operation in Pickering for Metropolitan Toronto waste was in the beginning based on a "willing host" scenario. Well, even the most courteous of willing hosts can get upset with a visitor that has overstayed his welcome.

Pickering reached that point with Metro some years ago. They were counting the days until Brock West could finally be closed. Then, lo and behold, even without knowing it, Pickering residents became a willing host yet again. It seems that the council of the region of Durham in conjunction with the regional municipalities decided that Pickering would once again be a willing host for Metro garbage. This was the birth of P1, the proposed interim landfill site in Whitevale that was proposed by the previous government without any options.

It was technically a willing host, but for the 60,000 people in Pickering it was just the big guys raking in the bucks by sacrificing the little guy who didn't have enough votes on regional council to fight it.

My constituents know about willing hosts. They know about the shortcuts the previous government took. They know about the democratic process. They do not have to be reminded, and I find it rather interesting that the Liberal Party has been converted on the road to opposition, where they justly deserve to stay for a long time if that's their view of the democratic process.

Mr Sorbara: This debate on Bill 143 is going to continue until either the New Democratic Party government is defeated by the people in the next election or at an earlier time when the Minister of the Environment introduces amendments into this Legislature to change the basic principles of Bill 143.

I've sat in this House for over seven years now and represented the people of York region, or some of the people of York region, for seven years. I want to make it clear that I have never in the course of those seven years seen such angry, fierce and determined citizen involvement in a matter of public policy as on this issue, as crafted by the Minister of the Environment under the terms of Bill 143.

I can just think back to a meeting in King City a couple of nights ago, where more than 500 people gathered to express their outrage, their anger and their determination that they, along with the other residents of York region, will move heaven and earth rather than allow the government of the day to implement what is provided for in Bill 143. I've never seen anything like it, not on the most controversial of bills. I too, I tell my friend the member for Durham West, believe in the democratic process and I believe that in a democracy the will of the people is going to prevail.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West, you had your turn. It's his turn.

Mr Sorbara: I was speaking about the meeting in King City the other night and the determination of the people there to make sure this policy is not implemented. The kind of speeches I heard there from citizens and local representatives actually struck fear in me, because as one councillor put it, "There will be blood in the street before this dump is opened in York region." I don't agree we have to go that far, but I just mention it in this Legislature to advise members of the degree of anger.

Let's find out why this is. Let's review the facts and circumstances. What brought us to this point? First, is there a problem? Yes, there is a problem. Metropolitan Toronto, a community of some 2.5 million people, creates on a day-to-day and month-to-month basis a great deal of garbage. Its facilities at Keele Valley are now filling up and at some point or another Metropolitan Toronto, in conjunction with other municipalities in the area and the province of Ontario, is going to be required to find new facilities or new ways of disposing of its garbage.

Let's give credit where credit is due. Bill 143 does say a lot of the right things about reuse, recycling and reduction of waste, and we have no quarrel with that. All of us agree unanimously that it is time we got on with that agenda. But the other part of Bill 143 is the thing that has outraged citizens, not just in York region but throughout Metropolitan Toronto and around the province.

Why is that? It's for two reasons: First, the Minister of the Environment determined that she would impose upon the province her personal and political ideology; that is, that the only solution to the disposal of garbage is the old outhouse technology of digging a hole and dumping it. Second, the Minister of the Environment determined that the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto would have to go in the urban shadow of Metropolitan Toronto. That means you have to dump it as close to home as possible; again, the outhouse technology.

I want to say a few things about dumping in the urban shadow. No jurisdiction in North America or Europe has used the urban shadow approach for dumps in the past 30 years. One wonders why Ontario, Metropolitan Toronto and Ruth Grier are doing it, but that's for another, longer debate.

Even assuming that the political approach of dumping in the urban shadow of a large metropolitan area is the appropriate one, instead of saying all the urban shadow can be a candidate site, the minister determined that only one municipality in that urban shadow would be an appropriate candidate region for the garbage. That determination is so arbitrary, so outrageous, so unacceptable, that the people of York region said, "It cannot survive, and if the minister does not change her mind, we will ensure that the government is defeated and that garbage is never dumped in Metropolitan Toronto."

Let me put it to you another way, Mr Speaker, just to enforce the point and the perspective of York region. I ask you to make a determination. How fair would it be if the Minister of the Environment said the garbage dump can go anywhere in Ontario except York region? Would that be fair? Would that be acceptable? What if the Minister of the Environment said the garbage could go anywhere in the urban shadow in the regions of Durham, Peel or Halton, anywhere in the urban shadow except York region? Would the government members support a bill of that nature?

I tell my friends in opposition they supported a bill that did the exact same thing, except in reverse, when Ruth Grier said in the bill that the facility shall go in York region.

That's the justification for it. That's the thing that so troubles the people of York region. If the rest of the urban shadow had been open as a possibility for a candidate site, they might have said: "Okay, it's their politics that it goes in the urban shadow.

It's their politics to have dumps, so okay, all of the urban shadow is a possible area for this megadump." When the people of York region read that bill and it said that Peel has to find a site for Peel garbage, they said, "Okay," and Durham has to find a site for Durham garbage, they said, "That's okay." But then the bill said that Metro Toronto and York region have to find a site for their garbage and they said: "No, stop, hold it. That doesn't make sense." Tilt -- you know, you're playing pinball and the machine says "Tilt." Something is out of order. Something is not acceptable.

We said to the Minister of the Environment when she introduced the bill: "Ruth, don't do this. It's a political decision. All hell will break loose. You are creating a crisis that you will not be able to control. You can't arbitrarily identify York region as the site for Metro garbage and get away with it. The democratic process will not allow you to do that."

She was stubborn, she was arbitrary, she insisted, and they used a closure motion to ram it through Parliament, I say to my friend who refers to the democratic process, and now we have the law on the books. But in a democracy where the will of the people prevails, I am absolutely satisfied that this megadump will never open in York region, because if the minister does not change the law, then the people will change the government.

It's not just a York region issue. Every single environmental group in the province of Ontario has told the Minister of the Environment that she was wrong in the way she has gone about this. Every single council in York region has provided funds to fight this. The region of York itself is taking the minister and the Interim Waste Authority -- as if there is anything interim about this -- to the highest court in the land to challenge this under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects or is supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of the people of this province.

I simply want to say in closing and in completing my remarks that we here in opposition will continue to race as fast as we can to keep up with the people of York region who have a determination in this regard that gives me the highest degree of confidence that this will never happen. We will fight until the end. We will defeat the government or we will change this bill or, if I have my druthers, we will do both.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity, and the members from the Liberal Party for bringing forward the motion Mr Cousens drafted. It certainly shows there is some cooperation on at least one issue.

First, the list is long on the inaccuracies that the member for Durham West outlined in his speech. I only have a minute left. I'll just go through quickly what's wrong.

This government has absolutely butchered this issue, totally butchered it from day one. Metropolitan Toronto acted in a very uphanded and fair manner. All the sites that they were going through were going through full environmental assessment hearings under a shortened process. It was a very public and very understandable process. Granted, that government there didn't agree with that process and I accepted the fact it didn't agree with the shortened process. I understood the fact during the election that they didn't accept the process and they came forward and said, "All sites must go through an environmental assessment program," and I understood that.

The environmental assessment program takes 17 years; 17 years was the last site approved on the environmental assessment program. Under Bill 143 these sites will be on stream in two to three years. They're trying to tell me that's a full environmental assessment program. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. The only thing that's consistent is the clothes they wore in 1987. That's the only thing that's consistent about their position.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, members opposite, and the member for Durham West particularly should be very ashamed of his position, because you are not representing your constituents and you've been co-opted by government.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a pleasure to be debating this again, as we have on many occasions. There are some points in this resolution that I'd like to particularly address. The first point is the decision about the prohibition of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond its boundaries being contrary to the Environmental Assessment Act. I want to point out that the traditional waste master planning process and the practice is to define the search area, and that's exactly what the government did.

The second point that has been raised is the right to a full environmental assessment and the right to review all options. The preferred sites that will be selected by the Interim Waste Authority will be defended, and have to be defended, before the Environment Assessment Board, and that's a process that is quite open.

Quite often in this debate we're hearing about options. One option that one of my colleagues pointed out was incineration. Why not incineration? I don't think I could go off into my constituency and tell any of my constituents that the opposition members would like to see an incinerator here, because they don't think burying the garbage is a good answer. That option was well debated in the committee; we heard from an awful lot of experts. I'm not saying I'm an expert on it, but that's one of the options that has been talked about, and that's something we want to talk about.

When they refer to all the options, another one is the train, sending it north to Kirkland Lake. I've got an

article here from USA Today newspaper, and it's dated July 14, 1992. I'll read you the title of it: "Trash Train Continues Vagabond Course." The Santa Fe Railway calls it the "PU Choo-Choo." That's a very good name for it because in the

article it says there were large numbers of flies, maggots and an odour coming from the containers that were dripping. The vagabond train has focused attention on the growing debate over solid waste disposal and the regular hauling of household garbage all around the country.

I don't know if, when that train was making its trek up north, the members opposite thought about when it stops. It could get stopped and delayed in Beaverton or in Orillia or in Huntsville or North Bay, because that's all very likely, and maybe we could have the PU Choo-Choo sitting in North Bay. I don't think the members opposite would like that too much.

When they talk about Kirkland Lake as an option, the so-called willing host, if it had to go before the Environmental Assessment Board, every single potential site would have to be considered. This is because a proponent of a landfill site cannot go in front of the Environmental Assessment Board with just one site having been examined for that reason, because there are people who want the garbage there, the willing host. The board would simply dismiss that undertaking.

Another aspect was the impact of landfill on the greater Toronto area. We've seen the emotion that's been stirred up by this, because we did have some large rallies here, and there are a lot of large meetings taking place up in my constituency and my other York colleagues' constituencies. But when they show up here at Queen's Park, they let the people of Metropolitan Toronto know they've got a responsibility in this. They've got to get serious about waste reduction. They've got to take that to Metro council and tell it that it has got to be responsible.

There is an agreement, an arrangement that Metro would take York's waste till the year 2003. There's also a responsibility on the part of Metro to start taking a look at reduction, and that's what those residents were coming down and saying as well. They're not only being critical, but they're taking a look at all of the aspects that need to be looked at.

I know my colleague from the north wants to talk a little bit about it, so I'm not going to go on much longer. I just want to say that, as far as the impact of landfill not being fully examined is concerned, every aspect of landfill I have mentioned is going to have to go before a full Environmental Assessment Board hearing. These hearings will take into consideration the full impact before a shovel ever touches the ground, and I think that's important. Two new landfill sites within the greater Toronto area were to go to Whitevale and Brampton without going before that board, and I don't think that was a democratic process.

The Interim Waste Authority was not created to say that we didn't have a responsibility, because, yes, we've got a responsibility and we're not turning our backs on the people we represent. We've got a serious problem and we're addressing it.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Very briefly, I want to join in the debate by indicating that this whole process has certainly troubled the Doanes, a family in my riding whose farm, which they've been farming since 1935, has in fact been zeroed in on as one of the sites for garbage.

I suggest to you that flies right in the face of the New Democratic Party's lifelong statement that it wishes to preserve good farm land. This farm land has been in existence since 1935. What are the Doanes to do? Are they to be left on hold for a year or two or three, before they can finally get back to making plans to farm on a long-term basis?

In addition to that, there are other people in my riding who went through a process that went on for years and many of them would come to me when I was on city council and say, "I'm afraid to fix up my rec room, Mr Callahan, because I don't know whether or not that landfill site across the street is going to be the one designated."

I suggest to you that what has happened now is we've put them right back in that same process. We've put them on hold. That's not fair to the people of my riding or, for that matter, to the ridings of those members who have spoken on this matter. I want to thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to say those few things on behalf of my constituents.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I've only got a few minutes. I'll just make the most important points. It is with great pleasure I have an opportunity to get up and participate in this debate that was put forward by the Liberal member -- I forget the riding -- Mr Beer.

I just want to point out a couple of things in his debate, because I think it's fairly important. One of the things I'd like to point out is that one of the things that is said by the opposition -- I think the member for Markham mentioned it -- is how this whole approach in regard to Bill 143 was an unthought-out process; it wasn't any good, there was no logic to it and it didn't work at all.

What they're advocating, what they want to do in this particular situation, by allowing the garbage to be shipped outside of the GTA is that -- basically the analogy would be like saying, "I'm cleaning my living room and rather than take the dirt and put it in the wastepaper basket, I'm going to take it and sweep it into somebody else's room" -- that's the position they're advocating.

The one thing I want to point out that's really interesting is that the Liberals have finally found a piece of policy. For years they were in the opposition; then they became the government. We didn't know where they were going when they were in government, so people booted them out. But all of a sudden they came up and they found a policy. The policy is that now they believe in environmental protection. They believe that there should be a full environmental assessment on these particular sites, which there will be, because we provided for that under Bill 143.

But I'm glad that they've taken that position, because I want to tell the people watching today that what happened under the Liberal government when it looked at the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake in Boston township is that it was going to allow that particular site to go ahead and become a short-term site without an environmental assessment. They were going to allow it to go as a short-term site. It would go under the EPA and, once they got garbage into the pit, who needs an environmental assessment at that point? So they didn't have a policy when they were in government because they were going to allow that site to go ahead.

What needs to be pointed out over here is that what happened is they needed to deal with the garbage crisis. No problem, that's fair. As a government they tried to give it some direction and leadership. They were kind of short on that. What they did is they turned around and they went out and they said, "We want municipalities to nominate those sites that they think would be able to act as interim sites in the short term." Metropolitan Toronto was the one that nominated Kirkland Lake. Metro nominates a town in northern Ontario to become its waste disposal site because supposedly it's a willing host.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: No. I'm a northerner and we don't want garbage in northern Ontario. We have to deal with our own.

The thing is that what happened is that Peel went and nominated 6B, Durham nominated P1, and all of those sites, if any one of them had been accepted, would have gone without an environmental assessment, not one. That's terrible.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Liberals all of a sudden demand that there's going to be an environmental assessment. They want an environmental assessment. They think every site should go ahead with an environmental assessment. I agree, but it's a long time after the issue that you've changed your mind, because you were going to allow Kirkland Lake to go without such a provision. It would have been done under the EPA and that is totally correct.

That's what the people in Kirkland Lake found out when they started reading the agreement, because this agreement was put as a package that was so wonderful initially, but when people started to read the fine print they found out there were no recycling jobs, because the garbage you were going to send up there was the residuals and had nothing to do with the recyclable contents. Second of all, it wouldn't have undergone an environmental assessment; it would have been under an EPA.

Come clean for once. The Liberals are such that if you put two glasses of water in front of them and they have to choose one, they'll die of thirst. They can't make up their minds. That's what's going to happen to them. So come clean.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York North.

Mr Beer: Let's be very clear, when we listen to the rubbish that has just come out on this issue, that we had in the person of Jim Bradley the finest Minister of the Environment this province has ever had. We had with that minister somebody who stood up and defended the environment. What is incredible in what we have heard from the members opposite --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Beer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we have heard from the members opposite --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West, I advise you to remain quiet.

Mr Beer: The reason why they try to go back and talk about things which didn't happen and tell us about a policy that they say existed and didn't exist, is because they know they stand on such flimsy ground with Bill 143, which should never have been presented to this House, which is, in and of itself, garbage.

We have heard a number of comments about the motion. I want to go back and commend my colleague the member for Markham, who, in a very thoughtful address, set out all of the problems that have emerged as we begin to look at all of the sites that have been put out. There are many. My colleague the member for York Centre noted the feelings that exist in those areas because of this arbitrary policy. Somehow, one of the things that we have to do in this House, and from this side of the House, is to make you understand what is happening up there.

The other point that has to be made is that when the members opposite talk about what happened in the past or a short-track process, what you are doing in this bill -- there's nothing short-track about it -- is a direct and fundamental attack on the basic rights of individuals because you're saying there is no choice and no option.

In addition, they come at us not using the words in the motion, not in fact using any words that were expressed here and through that old favourite of saying, "They want to talk about incineration," or "They want to talk about Kirkland Lake," or whatever. Let me remind them that what they're proposing in this bill and what they refuse to talk about is a megadump, outhouse technology, 19th-century technology, bad environmental technology, bad environmental policy. It is just simply bad. Why don't you have the courage to focus on that issue?

Because what you're saying, no matter what stand you have taken -- and I respect that in the past on different dump sites -- what you are saying by supporting this bill is that dumps are the way to go and that in the region of York the only way to go is to create this SkyDome monstrosity, this 13-storey-high dump. You're saying that is the answer.

The inequity of this bill is simply what we have said. In the process all options should be on the table. We have not argued for any one. In fact, the Kirkland Lake proposal was that it simply go through a full environmental assessment. Nobody was saying that had to be the one. What we know, those of us who are living in York and Durham and Peel, is that what this does is say, "Thou shalt have a dump," and in the course of York region, "Thou shalt have a megadump and there will be no question about that."

Earlier in the week in a question to the minister I used the metaphor of, what good does it do to a person who is going to be taken to the gallows to be told, "Listen, we're going to allow you to participate in a wonderful process to choose the site where the rope will be swung"? You go through a six-month process and you look at different sites -- outside, inside, some with flowers, some without -- but let's face it, at the end you are going to be swinging from the gallows. That is exactly what is happening here in terms of York region. There is no choice.

There will be, according to the Minister of the Environment, according to the New Democratic Party, a megadump which goes against every fundamental environmental principle I would have thought that party supported.

So when the member for Markham, the member for York Centre and I have come forward from York region with our views and our feelings on this issue we need to underline that we are reflecting what is being said within our own areas. What is being said is that this is a rotten process, a faulty process, a sham process. This bill must be changed, because the people in York region are not going to accept what you are forcing upon them. I urge you to think very carefully, before you cast your vote today on this motion that this motion should pass.

The House divided on Mr Beer's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 23

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cousens, Curling, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Jordan, Murdoch (Grey), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 29

Bisson, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Ferguson, Fletcher, Grier, Haeck, Hope, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1215.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): The Minister of Municipal Affairs knows that Bill 75 calls for the annexation of 64,000 acres from Middlesex county municipalities, including the entire town of Westminster, to the city of London.

In alternative proposals to the minister, representatives of the town of Westminster, the townships of Delaware, London, North Dorchester and West Nissouri and the county of Middlesex have proposed that the amount of land to be annexed be 24,000 acres, rather than 64,000 acres, as put forth by the greater London area sole arbitrator, Mr John Brant. These are realistic options to try to resolve a bitter boundary negotiations process.

I'm very pleased that the minister has agreed to meet with the affected parties. However, the conflict around this situation could have been prevented if the minister had followed a more reasonable process. The minister arbitrarily appointed a sole arbitrator to review the problem and make recommendations. Although the minister had a wide-ranging authority under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act to effect a new settlement, this kind of third-party determination is unprecedented and disregards the principle of having locally elected representatives negotiate a settlement.

I am pleading on behalf of the residents of Middlesex county, and indeed many of the residents of the city of London, that the minister use this opportunity to listen to the alternatives put forward by locally elected officials and to effect changes to Bill 75.

OWEN SOUND LITTLE THEATRE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I would like to advise the House and the Minister of Culture and Communications of the value of the Owen Sound Little Theatre to my community. This company, which began performing in 1961, operates in the Roxy Theatre and has been entertaining local people and visitors since that time. The theatre is also home to touring professional acting groups, commercial promotions, children's shows, dance recitals and concerts by various arts groups. These presentations make the city the cultural centre of Grey and Bruce and are vital in maintaining the life of Owen Sound's downtown core.

But the theatre now needs to expand and upgrade in order to fully accommodate people with disabilities, to meet current fire and building code standards and to encourage a broader public use. People in wheelchairs and walkers need improved access to all areas of the building and the members of the tour group need a rehearsal hall and costume and set-building areas.

In all these years of operation this theatre has never run a deficit, thanks to a dedicated band of volunteers who administer and maintain the facility and to the active community fund-raising events. But now they need a capital grant and they deserve support.

I would urge the minister to look favourably at this request. She must see that these funds will be well spent in that she will be assisting a hardworking and excellent amateur theatre group. They have made the Roxy Theatre into a cultural focus for the city of Owen Sound and an attraction which draws people from several areas of the province. We in Grey and Owen Sound are proud of the Little Theatre. It has delighted and educated people of all ages and has given a love of culture and the arts to many. It is my hope that it will be able to continue to do so for a very long time.

GEORGE A. SEIBEL

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): This year we mark the 200th anniversary of the Ontario Parliament. This will be re-enacted in September 17 in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The Niagara area is certainly rich in culture, heritage and beauty. Amidst the development of the modern hotels and attractions in Niagara Falls, we must not lose sight of our rich history.

There is one person I would like to honour in Niagara Falls who has made this his personal quest. Mr George A. Seibel has made an outstanding contribution to preserving and recording our history.

When I first moved to the city in 1977, I looked for a book on the history of the city. It was George's 1967 centennial history of the city. He created the Niagara Falls Heritage Foundation. He organized the celebration of the 200th anniversary of Portage Road. That's the original portage around the falls, starting from Queenston and winding through the city, ending up in the village of Chippawa.

He has been the adviser to all of us in the city on the history. He has given freely of his knowledge and experience. He has secured grants and done fund-raising to pay for all his projects and has never accepted payment for any of his work.

I know George as a man of creative and imaginative powers, skilled in organizing, research and hard work but, most of all, he loves working with people. His perseverance and courage are even more evident now in times of illness.

This is a lively collection of all the things he has done, many books about Niagara Falls. I would like to thank George for all he has done and continues to do.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I rise today on behalf of the senior citizens of Ontario, the fastest-growing segment of our population and one that has been totally ignored by Bob Rae's NDP government.

Let's just look at the NDP's record with seniors:

1. They disbanded the ministry for senior citizens' affairs and it came under the umbrella of the Ministry of Citizenship.

2. In last year's budget, the NDP put the tax grants that seniors receive to a means test, effectively killing the universality of seniors' benefits.

3. Seniors used to be able to go for walks and drives in our provincial parks at no expense. Now they must pay for each visit or buy a yearly pass.

4. Perhaps the worst of all is what happened to seniors as a direct result of the NDP government's failure to move on the reform of long-term care. The Minister of Health is going across the province closing down chronic and palliative care beds and cutting back on nursing staff, while the Minister of Community and Social Services is not picking up the slack by increasing funding for home care programs. Meanwhile seniors are slipping through the cracks.

5. Speaking of the health care system, the NDP is now attacking the Ontario drug benefit plan by slashing numerous prescribed drugs from the formulary.

The Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance has demanded the re-establishment of the ministry of senior citizens' affairs. Is it any wonder they feel there is no one at the cabinet table speaking for them?

I urge Bob Rae and his NDP government to reinstate the ministry of senior citizens' affairs and give the fastest growing segment of the people in Ontario a voice at your cabinet table.

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I want to point out a glaring contradiction in the government's health care policies. The Ministry of Health's redirection of long-term care is supposedly intended to place increased emphasis on community-based services, to enable elderly people and people with physical disabilities to remain in their homes for as long as possible.

The government's long-term care reform policy has already increased the number of acute and complex cases that require care in the community as hospital bed closures occur. This has increased the need for more highly qualified health care providers outside the hospital and in the community, yet in what appears to be a totally contradictory move, the government is cutting back funding to the Victorian Order of Nurses. In Ottawa-Carleton the VON has laid off 27 registered nurses in order to cut $250,000 from its budget. This is totally inconsistent with the Minister of Health's claim that quality care and a consistent standard of service will be ensured.

The VON has provided outstanding home support service in Ontario for 94 years. In Ottawa-Carleton alone the VON cares for 3,500 patients, making about 1,000 daily house calls. If the government is genuine in wanting to shift from hospital beds to home care, it must show that by being supportive of the VON, a premier organization that was decades ahead of all governments in providing excellent community and home health care.

KINGSTON AND DISTRICT EXHIBITION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to inform members that the Kingston and District Exhibition will once again be bringing the Memorial Centre in Kingston to life from July 21 to 25. There will be a combination of old and new attractions that will appeal to people of all ages and backgrounds.

Just a taste of the activities includes a midway, a parade featuring antique cars, agricultural competitions of animals and crops and the milking competition by local media representatives. Canada's own George Fox and Caroll Baker head up the entertainment roster, which includes old-time fiddlers, the Leeds county cloggers, square dancing, a demolition derby, a tractor pull and more. For the first time, an ambassador to the fair will be named. The Women's Institute will be providing refreshments in its tearoom.

Mr Speaker, 1992 marks the 200th anniversary of Ontario's first agricultural fair. Fittingly, the theme of the Kingston and District Exhibition this year is "Building on Tradition," and what a marvellous rural heritage the Kingston and District Agricultural Society has to build on. This year's fair is the 162nd annual event.

Originally fairs were started to give farmers the chance to come together to develop better practices through friendly competition. This cooperative spirit evolved into the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which now provides support to the farming community in so many ways, but the heritage of building strong farms also lives on in today's farmers and their organizations.

I applaud the members of the Kingston and District Agricultural Society for staging their exhibition once again this year. By giving city dwellers a firsthand experience of farm and rural life, it encourages vital support for a vibrant agricultural community. A province with farms is a province with a future.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Social assistance was increased last year by a meagre 2%, hardly enough to help low-income Ontarians get by. Some recipients of social assistance, in spite of the increase, saw their benefits decrease by 4.9%. This is because they had to pay a fee to cash a government cheque. The exploitation of the most vulnerable and needy members of our society will continue for as long as the decision-makers in this government believe that charging a fee to cash a welfare cheque is a legitimate practice.

I'm trying to understand how the Treasurer reached the conclusion that recipients of social assistance would not be well served by Bill 154, introduced by the member for Carleton East. Why did he tell the president of the Cheque Cashers Association of Canada that the bill does not reflect current government policy when many of his colleagues have expressed strong support for this legislation? He has written that he supports the concept that social assistance recipients require 100% of their payments for daily needs. If he supports the concept, why does he not support the bill, unless he thinks that losing 4.9% of a welfare cheque is only a concept?

The concrete reality is that low-income Ontarians are experiencing severe difficulties in meeting their basic needs. They must resort to food banks to supplement an insufficient diet. This is no concept; this is the harsh and painful reality of poverty.

REVIEW OF HOSPITALS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Over the past three weeks, people from across Ontario have contacted me to express their concerns regarding the public hearings into the Public Hospitals Act.

In a letter to Bob Rae, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops stated: "We would be alarmed should Ontario introduce legislation which would effectively divest Catholic owners of ultimate control of their hospitals." Religious hospitals, health care professionals and the public at large are concerned with the NDP's attempt to force a single solution on to the backs of hospitals throughout the province.

In St Catharines, those who came before the Wessenger panel gave overwhelming support to the idea of maintaining the system of volunteer hospital boards.

During a Public Hospitals Act meeting in Sudbury, Dr Jack Hollingsworth stated: "The government has made a power grab to administer the hospitals in a very monetary fashion without credence for other factors such as patient care and physician retention. It may work in other communities but it won't work in Sudbury."

In Thunder Bay, most of the presenters told the Wessenger panel that the act should have enough flexibility to accommodate the needs of all hospitals and that the success of hospitals is directly linked to the tireless commitment of volunteers.

I would urge the Minister of Health to listen closely to the pleas being made to the Wessenger panel, and I would caution the NDP against using the review of the Public Hospitals Act as a smokescreen to stack local hospital boards with union supporters while abandoning community volunteers.

FUNSTATION FUNPARK

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I rise today to commend the efforts of a very hardworking individual who is committed to working for the good of the community. Mr Don Pyatt is the owner of Funstation Funpark, an amusement park in my riding of Yorkview. He has worked diligently the past eight years to make the park what it is today: a clean, positive environment that is fun for children and adults alike.

Funstation Funpark offers Metropolitan Toronto the largest mini-golf course in Ontario, batting cages, a carousel for youngsters, bumper cars and a wide variety of games. It is now expanding to include an enclosed building to host banquets and group functions.

Mr Pyatt's Funstation is not only a thriving business, but it is also very involved in the community. We all know that communities must work together in these tough times, and Don is an excellent example of how community leaders can take an active role. Located at Jane and Finch, Funstation provides good, clean fun for everyone. It is noteworthy that the park offers a complimentary policy for handicapped and mentally or physically challenged individuals.

The park has raised funds in conjunction with many groups, including the Ministry of Transportation for the United Way. Funstation is currently planning a summer event with the Canadian Diabetes Association.

Honourable members, you can well see that Mr Pyatt's contributions to the community are just wonderful. I would like to welcome my colleagues to congratulate Mr Pyatt, who is seated in the east gallery, for his current expansion and to encourage his continued community involvement. We wish him the very best. Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you, Mr Pyatt.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, I would like unanimous consent to make a brief statement.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): As we all know, this can be a House of heated debate and opposing views, but always we are colleagues sharing in each other's happiness. Therefore, on behalf of all the members, I wish to express our most sincere best wishes to Robert Marland, son of the honourable member for Mississauga South, in his pursuit of a gold medal at the summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain. Robert is a member of the eight-man rowing team and he is competing in his second Olympic try.

Also joining with Robert are Bill Irwin and Mike Strange of the Niagara Falls Shamrock Boxing Club. I am sure all the members join with me in wishing these three special gentlemen and the entire Canadian Olympic team our best wishes for a truly successful Olympic games. I know he is already blessed by having Margaret for a mother.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I would like to relay our best wishes to Robert in his endeavours. As members of this House, we often have difficulty juggling our family responsibilities and our responsibilities to our constituents. I think Margaret Marland has shown that she has given leadership to her family and to her son. I know she has supported him tremendously through the years of sacrifice he has put in in endeavouring to be part of the Olympic team. So please, Margaret, take to your son Robert and to the other members of the Olympic team our very best wishes.

We know he's going to come back and you can probably show us the pictures of Robert with his gold medal. Best wishes.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On behalf of our caucus, we are obviously extremely proud not only of Robert, but of Margaret as well. I think it's all too often that we forget we are individuals. We have personal lives which we are quite often asked to put on hold, even in the middle of July, as it turns out. But I think the genuine spirit of sincerity that prevails in the House, at least for these few minutes, indicates that indeed we all are individuals and we have a great deal of love and respect for each other.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): If I might, Mr Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, there's another person going to the Olympics who will be the son-in-law of one of the members at the end of August. The member for Northumberland's daughter is marrying a shot-putter who's on the Olympic team. I thought, in the interests of all of us being aware of the members of the Olympic team, that I might point that out to the House and wish them the best of luck. His name is Peter Dajia.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): With yet further indulgence, and although not a relative, a friend and a supporter, thank goodness, young Tommy Glesby, the outstanding boxer from Welland, who I don't believe could have been overlooked by the whip in her recitation of famous and celebrated young people from Niagara participating in Barcelona: Of course, I wish Tommy the very best of luck. I don't think he's going to need it, because he's got a great right.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): May I express my heartfelt appreciation to all members who have risen to recognize our Olympic athletes. It's obviously very emotional for me personally and I deeply appreciate the fact that members of all parties would recognize our son Robert and also the other athletes who are already on their way to, if they're not already in, Barcelona.

The good news I would like to bring to all of us, because I think this is a story that is an inspiration for all of us within and without sport is that we spoke to our son two days ago and Silken Laumann is rowing so well you would not know she had ever been injured. Silken, who is walking on crutches and sometimes is in a wheelchair, is able to row when she's in her scull because it's upper body muscles that are used.

I think all of us with constituents who face different forms of adversity from day to day, and obviously people with injuries they sustain through many different causes, are inspired by the courage of Silken Laumann and her determination to represent her country. I'm sure that whether Silken Laumann has a medal or not, she represents for all of us what our proud young people in all sports on the Olympic team are about. I thank you today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister of Correctional Services): Effective immediately, I am closing the Ministry of Correctional Services Bell Cairn staff training facility in the city of Hamilton. I am appointing an independent person to review the centre's operation since it opened last year, the ministry response and allegations of systemic harassment. That individual will make recommendations to improve the way this facility operates. This centre will not reopen until I am satisfied that it can operate in an appropriate manner.

As well, the Ontario Provincial Police today have announced that they are investigating allegations of two sexual assaults at the centre. I want to assure the individuals involved that their confidentiality will be strictly protected during this investigation.

I also want to reiterate the government's commitment to eliminate sexual harassment and to deal swiftly with allegations of this nature. As I have said previously, I take these allegations very seriously. On behalf of this government, I am outraged at these allegations and the lack of information I have received from the Ministry of Correctional Services. This government and this minister will not tolerate sexual assault, abuse or discrimination in any form.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have just a brief statement that I feel I should make myself since I'm the one who made the decision. I have decided to assign the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services to special duties within the Cabinet Office in light of what has taken place and, frankly, what has not taken place.

RESPONSES

MINISTRY TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to respond to both statements made by the government this afternoon on a matter of very real concern, I know, to all members of the Legislature and certainly to the people of Ontario.

What does one say, particularly in response to the last statement made by the Premier? The public servant involved is someone I know, someone I worked with closely over the course of a number of years. I must say that in light of what the Premier has said and in light of what has not been said to date, one can only conclude the government now believes, and has information to support this, that no one in the office of the Minister of Correctional Services or in the office of the Solicitor General was apprised of the incidents that occurred in Hamilton some six or seven weeks ago.

I must say, knowing the public servants involved and knowing the system that has been in place within the Ontario public service for years, that I find that absolutely incredible. Those of us who have served in government know that each and every department has a mechanism in place to report, to the minister's office, what might be called significant incidents. I cannot imagine that this incident which occurred in Hamilton at the Bell Cairn facility on or about June 1, 1992, was not reported to the minister's office. We are apparently to believe that. I want to see more evidence than I have at the present time before I can conclude that is so.

As I said, I know the particular public servant, I know the traditions of the Ontario public service and I find the government's line today absolutely incredible.

I want to say as well that all of us take very seriously our responsibilities to rout out sexual assault and violence, particularly violence against women and children, and what we have here apparently is the following: Ontario public servants, female crown employees, were apparently assaulted -- we are told by some, gang-raped -- by other public servants on public property owned by the government of Ontario in or around Hamilton some six weeks ago and that no one in the office of the minister involved knew about it. It is perfectly incredible that could be so.

We have heard from this government, we have heard from the ministers, particularly the Minister of Community and Social Services but from the Premier himself, how dedicated the government is to attacking the evil of sexual assault in this community.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I'm told by the Minister of Health that's why this action